Inherent PC Superiority?

[aurance]

A group of people that consistently survive life-or-death battles over years would either have to be superior to others (in skill, craft, or both) or be supremely lucky.

I think if you've played in a campaign where PCs make it to, say, 3rd level, you've already made the PCs noticeably superior to regular people.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

In our games, what makes you superior to other's out there are the achievements that you made. The fact that you somehow survived that fight with that dragon is what makes you superior, not your stats, not your powers, or the magic item that you carry. In our games you earn the title of hero, you are not born with it.

I don't really like games that start you out as the hero because to me I don't feel like I have really achieved anything. What is more fulfilling, being almost dirt poor and climbing your way to the top and becoming a billionaire, or just having money dumped into your lap without earning it? Sure they are both good things, but earning that money through hard work would give me more satisfaction and a sense of achievement than it just being handed to me.

I like to know that my character could die at any moment, I like that sense of danger in a game. I don't like to run around in godmode killing everything in sight, looting their treasure and then moving on to the next without breaking a sweat.

 

[The Shaman]

In our games, what makes you superior to other's out there are the achievements that you made. The fact that you somehow survived that fight with that dragon is what makes you superior, not your stats, not your powers, or the magic item that you carry. In our games you earn the title of hero, you are not born with it.

Agreed on all points.

I don't really like games that start you out as the hero because to me I don't feel like I have really achieved anything.

I think there is considerable excluded middle between 'scrofulous wretch' and 'radiant demigod.' 'Better than many with a sword' or 'silver-tongued scoundrel' in no way presume that there are no challenges to overcome, no fortunes to be gained, no glory to be earned.

What is more fulfilling, being almost dirt poor and climbing your way to the top and becoming a billionaire, or just having money dumped into your lap without earning it? Sure they are both good things, but earning that money through hard work would give me more satisfaction and a sense of achievement than it just being handed to me.

And what if you started with all of that money in your lap and immediately set about using it make something even more of yourself, to perform great works (or nefarious ones, for that matter)? That can make for a fascinating character to play as well.

I like to know that my character could die at any moment, I like that sense of danger in a game. I don't like to run around in godmode killing everything in sight, looting their treasure and then moving on to the next without breaking a sweat.

I agree with this, but starting as a competent character doesn't presume that encounters are necessarily easier - it implies that the opponents are simply tougher right from the giddyup.

 

[Barastrondo]

I don't really like games that start you out as the hero because to me I don't feel like I have really achieved anything. What is more fulfilling, being almost dirt poor and climbing your way to the top and becoming a billionaire, or just having money dumped into your lap without earning it?

It depends on whether in that game money is seen as a reward or as a stepping stone to the real conflict. The whole concept of rewards is about things you don't have and must fight to get. If a character who starts with a lot of money has rewards that they cannot buy and must fight to get, sort of like Batman, then money doesn't play a part in whether you feel fulfilled or not.

I like to know that my character could die at any moment, I like that sense of danger in a game. I don't like to run around in godmode killing everything in sight, looting their treasure and then moving on to the next without breaking a sweat.

As The Shaman says, that sense of danger comes from opponents that are scaled to your power level, whatever it may be. The idea that more powerful characters are in "godmode" is illusory; it may be true for some games, but it's also true that in some low-powered games the GM won't let the players suffer any real setback, so the concept of them earning their rewards is also illusory. It really just comes down to the group. Rat Bastard GMs are by no means limited to the Basic set.

 

[Hassassin]

In my game, which uses D&D 3.5, the PCs start off clearly better than the average guy - they roll best 3 of 4 for abilities, and at 1st level get max HP in a PC class rather than average in an NPC class.

That said, there are many who are more skilled than them in the world and nothing inherently prevents them from failing in what they attempt. They know if they attack a clearly powerful enemy (dragon, famed duelist, king's bodyguard...) I won't drop the enemy to their level just to give them a chance. The world around them is filled with challenges both above and below their level.

My players have become a bit too careful in my opinion, sometimes spending more time planning for a scenario than actually executing their plan. Since they seem to like it (I've asked) I'm fine with it, even though it means that I as the DM often have half an hour where I basically just listen.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Agreed on all points.

I really don't want this thread about arguing, but your post wasn't. Thanks for making it more discussion-like than argument-like

I think there is considerable excluded middle between 'scrofulous wretch' and 'radiant demigod.' 'Better than many with a sword' or 'silver-tongued scoundrel' in no way presume that there are no challenges to overcome, no fortunes to be gained, no glory to be earned.

I agree. I'd say that applies to any level of power, though. There's always something to pursue, and there's always something that can challenge you. I just prefer the low-end stuff, as does my group (even if we have a blast with the high-end stuff!).

And what if you started with all of that money in your lap and immediately set about using it make something even more of yourself, to perform great works (or nefarious ones, for that matter)? That can make for a fascinating character to play as well.

It still probably wouldn't be as fulfilling in terms of gaining the wealth. What you do with it, I agree, can be fulfilling as well.

I agree with this, but starting as a competent character doesn't presume that encounters are necessarily easier - it implies that the opponents are simply tougher right from the giddyup.

Nothing wrong with that style of game whatsoever

Now, let me be clear on my game (even if you didn't ask...): the PCs do start off as competent. I just have the rest of the world as competent as well. Where players characters start off at hit die 1 (as I use a level system in my game), most commoner NPCs will vary between hit die 1-6. The average might be around 3-4 for people in their late 20s. They have a lot of experience, and are very good at their trade. The PCs will start off competent, they just will not be experienced yet. That's where experience and leveling comes into play.

As always, it's all preference, and I think the answers thus far have been interesting. Play what you like

 

[Gilbetron]

I like "low-powered" gaming, but because of the feeling of vulnerability that comes with playing such a character, not because I find it any more heroic. The problem with games that are about the PC being heroic, but doing so only through risky situations is that the PC will die rather soon if that is the case. If we define risky as "50% chance of dying", then that certainly is heroic, but if you keep it up, you're going to fail very soon. And by "fail" I mean "die"

For the most part, I don't see high-risk, "heroic" games that interesting, because they will, if they truly are what they say, be rather short. I like long-term campaigns. Plus, turns out I'm a normal guy in everyday life, I like my RPing to be non-normal

 

[The Shaman]

I really don't want this thread about arguing, but your post wasn't. Thanks for making it more discussion-like than argument-like

Thank you for saying so.

I'd say that applies to any level of power, though. There's always something to pursue, and there's always something that can challenge you.

One hopes.

In my experience, some referees are more comfortable nerfing the adventurers' abilities than upping the challenges, frex, making a destination inaccessible through magic like teleport or wind walk in order to force the adventurers through a series of gauntlet encounters. I can sorta understand that reaction, to a point - running high level challenges for powerful adventurers can be, well, a challenge - but I personally encourage those referees to stretch themselves rather than holding back their players.

I just prefer the low-end stuff, as does my group (even if we have a blast with the high-end stuff!).

My personal interest skews heavy toward historical roleplaying games, games without magic or 'cinematic' expectations, games without 'plot immunity' or much in the way of metagame resources for character survival, so I can definitely relate.

Even the most powerful characters in my games are still just people. One of the adventurers in our Flashing Blades game is an extraordinarily good fencer - he's effectively unbeatable with a sword in his hand, but a pistol shot to the face can still kill him outright.

It still probably wouldn't be as fulfilling in terms of gaining the wealth.

My favorite Traveller adventure is Leviathan - the adventurers begin as the command crew of a large merchant starship with a wad of company cash to use in speculative trading.

We must agree to disagree on this particular point.

What you do with it, I agree, can be fulfilling as well.

Just ask The Batman.

As always, it's all preference, and I think the answers thus far have been interesting. Play what you like

Agreed.

 

[JamesonCourage]

We must agree to disagree on this particular point.

Alrighty

Just ask The Batman.

Yeah, seriously. I'm currently watching some Batman stuff, actually...

 

[carmachu]

This isn't a thread for debate, as it's not constructive to my original post when I created this thread. If you want to say what you prefer, I'd like to hear it. I'd simply ask you not to come into the thread and start disagreements when that isn't what the thread is about.

Thank you.

If thats the way you wish to be:

I let the players run rampant. Slaughter villages if thats what they want. Its quite heroic.